2. The Practical Significance of a Psychology of Criminal Conduct James Bonta Public Safety Canada Dutch Probation Service & University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, the Netherlands May 2009

3. Outline of the Presentation 1. The General Policy Debate – getting the right balance of punishment and treatment 2. Theoretical Perspectives of Crime – forensic mental health and a Psychology of Criminal Conduct (GPCSL) 3. Psychology (GPCSL) – making a difference

6. House of wax reviews

7. Excerpt From First Hit “This is by far one of the best movies that I have seen. I saw it with my friends and they liked it too. One thing that we all liked a lot in the movie was how good at actressing Paris Hilton was. She shoud win a Grammie for her role!” Overall rating: 9 / 10

8. Should I Believe This Review? n Reviewer has reviewed other movies and shows n n > 1 (friends agreed with review) n Reviewer is literate (somewhat) n Paris Hilton is talented...

9. Meta-analysis n Comprehensive: Include ALL studies regardless of design & p level n Common metric n Quantification & Objectivity

10. “Do No Harm” – Nice Motto But, some criminal justice policies and practices do cause (“unintended”?) harm – n To the community n To the person

11. Doing Harm to the Community: The “Get Tough” Movement n Utilitarian Model of Crime –If crime pays, then up the costs n Just Deserts –Punishment as a deserved social value; It is the “fair” thing to do n Has this worked? –U.S. has ¼ of world prison population (7 million under correctional supervision)

12. Harm to the Community: “Get Tough” and Recidivism Smith et al., 2002

13. Doing Harm to the Person n Denial of liberty n Barriers to pursue social “goods” n Sanctions for punishment and not as punishment n Personal degradation

18. Why Do We Continue to do Harm? n Politics n Disrespect for Evidence n Dumb theories

19. Disrespect for Evidence ðRemember: Inhibits — does not teach new behavior ð Vary punishers (few universal punishers) ð Immediate ð Appropriate intensity ð Type of person: * nonimpulsive, future-oriented * average to above-average IQ * minimal punishment history * cautious, avoids/minimizes excitement

20. Dumb Theories: Correctional Quackery “treatment interventions that are based neither on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs that have shown to change offender behavior” n Dismissive of evidence

21. Dumb Theories Lead to Dumb Interventions: Correctional Quackery n Drama/Art/Horticultural Therapies n Acupuncture n TM n Healing Breath Training n Pet Therapy n Vision Training n Much Music Therapy…

23. Doing Good: Not So Dumb Theories n Forensic Mental Health n A Psychology of Criminal Conduct: A General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning Perspective

24. Forensic Mental Health The Cause of Crime ùCause is within the person and pathological ùExample theories: Psychiatric disorders (e.g., paranoid schizophrenic), Psychopathy, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Neurotic-Anxious

25. Implications for Assessment and Treatment AssessmentTreatment Anxiety  Relaxation, medication Intellectual/  Educational/Remedial Cognitive Deficits Self-esteem  Counseling Depression Alienation Schizophrenia  Hospitalization, Manic-depressionmedication Hallucinations Delusions

26. Risk Assessment in Corrections

27. Clinical Measure Study 1 Self-esteem ns Anxiety ns Locus of Control ns Depression -.21* Clinical Predictors Study 2 ns

28. Psychological Distress and Intellectual Dysfunction Gendreau et al., 1996

29. Mental Disorder as a Predictor of Recidivism General Violent NGRI-.06 *-.02 (1830)(1462) MDO-.19 **-.10 ** (3009)(2866) (Bonta et al. 1998) NGRI = Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity MDO = Mentally Disordered Offender

30. Principles of Effective Rehabilitation Risk Principle  Treat the higher risk Need Principle  Address criminogenic needs Responsivity Principle  use cognitive-behavioural interventions

31. Meta-analysis of the Treatment of MDO nComprehensiveness of Intervention –78% targeted mental illness only –4% targeted criminogenic needs; 13% targeted both nAppropriate Correctional Intervention –33% not appropriate –53% somewhat appropriate –5% appropriate (Morgan, Flora, Kroner, et al., 2007)

32. Forensic Mental Health: Summary Indicators of psychological distress and psychopathology are weak predictors of criminal behavior Treatment targets being used today for MDOs are unlikely to result in significant reductions in recidivism

33. General Personality and Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL) n Basic Ideas  Behaviour is learned following established learning principles  Learning is a function of the immediate situation  The situation interacts with person factors

34. General Personality Cognitive Social Learning (GPCSL)

36. GPCSL and Risk Assessment

37. GPSCL and Risk Assessment  Sample at a minimum the Big Four and ideally the Central Eight  Seven of the Central Eight are dynamic risk factors (criminogenic needs) Are we doing this?

38. 1st Generation (Clinical Judgment) 2nd Generation: Static 3rd Generation: Integrated Risk & Need 4th Generation Four Generations of Risk Assessment

39. 1 st Generation: I Can Tell

40. Second Generation: Static Risk.

41. Third Generation: Dynamic Risk General Violent 3rd.36.25

42. Dynamic Risk: Advantages n Monitoring Offenders n Selecting Intervention Targets n Evaluating Treatment

43. Dynamic Predictive Validity Re-assessment Risk StudyN Intake Risk LowHigh Andrews & Robinson 57Low 4.2 28.6 (1984)High 0.0 57.1 Motiuk et al. (1990)55Low 0.0 33.3 High 0.054.5 Raynor et al. (2000)157Low 26.2 54.8 England & Wales High 55.378.4 Raynor (2007)203Low 29.059.0 Jersey High 54.076.0 Arnold (2007)1064Low 13.026.0 High 32.0 54.0

44. Predictive Validity Type of Recidivism Risk Scale General Violent 1 st.10.13 2 nd.29.31 3 rd.36.25 4 th.41.29 ___________________________________ (From Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006)

45. The Four Generations of Risk Assessment n First Generation Üsubjective; poor inter-rater reliability Üpredictive accuracy: poor n Second Generation Üobjective, empirically linked criteria Ügood inter-rater reliability Ümostly static and criminal history variables n Third Generation Üall advantages of second generation Ücriminogenic needs n Fourth Generation Üall advantages of third generation Üintegration of assessment with case management in accordance with the RNR principles (Andrews & Bonta, 2006)

46. What Does GPCSL Mean for Treatment? GPCSL is the theoretical basis to the Risk- Need-Responsivity Principles of Effective Intervention

47. GPCSL and the Risk Principle Assess risk and match treatment services to risk level

48. GPCSL and the Need Principle Assess and target criminogenic needs

49. GPCSL and the Responsivity Principle Match treatment style to offender’s learning style  Behaviour is learned following established learning principles ( General Responsivity: Cognitive-Behavioural)  The situation interacts with person factors ( Specific Responsivity)

50. Adherence to Principles by Setting Decrease Increase Recidivism  Community  Residence

51. Do the same principles apply to sexual offender treatment programs?

52. Sex Offender Treatment and RNR None 1 principle 2 principles All three 4 studies 6 studies 12 studies 1 study (Hanson et al., 2008)

53. Comparative effects sizes for selected interventions Intervention Target Effect size Aspirin Heart attack 0.03 Chemotherapy Breast cancer 0.11 Bypass surgery Heart disease 0.15 Offender Treatment Recidivism 0.12 (ns) 0.29 (approp)

54. Making it Work

56. Going Beyond Structured Programs To reduce recidivism, many jurisdictions deliver structured group programs that attend to the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Principles Are the principles applied in individual community supervision?

57. Manitoba Case Management Study Key Questions: a)Is level of intervention proportional to risk? b)Does supervision target criminogenic needs? c)Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive-behavioural strategies, problem- solving)? (Bonta et al., 2004)

58. Supervision Target Criminogenic Needs? Need Area % Discussed When Need Present Family/Marital90 Substance Abuse78 Accommodation57 Employment/Academic57 Peer Problems21 Attitudes9

59. Targeting Criminogenic Needs and Recidivism  More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism Length of DiscussionRecidivism (%) Low (0-15 minutes)59.8 Medium (16-30 minutes) 47.6 High (40+ minutes)20.3

60. Impact on Recidivism  Length of interview unrelated to recidivism  Almost all interviews spent some time discussing probation conditions  However ……

61. Probation Conditions and Recidivism  Compliance with the probation conditions is a fact of community supervision  But too much emphasis can backfire TimeRecidivism 10 minutes18.9% 15 minutes or more42.3% Rates adjusted for risk level

62. Best Practices Techniques: 1. Relationship Factors Variable @ Intake@ 6 months Encourages97%96% Empathy48%22% Warmth46%48% Enthusiastic27%40%  Indicators of a positive rapport with clients were highly variable

63. Best Practices Techniques: 2. Behavioural Indicators Variable @ Intake @ 6 months Prosocial reinforcement68%72% Homework assigned28%24% Practice22%24% Procriminal discouragement 20%18% Prosocial modeling17%15%  Many indicators of behavioural influence were absent

64. Manitoba Case Management Study: Major Findings 1) Modest adherence to Risk Principle 2) Identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases (Need Principle) 3) Relationship and cognitive-behavioural skills used inconsistently (Responsivity Principle)

65. The Mother of STICS Manitoba Case Management Study

66. STICS Project Three-Day Training in Evidence-Based Practice 1. A General Personality Social-Cognitive Model 2. Risk Principle 3. Need Principle 4. Responsivity Principle: a) interpersonal relationship b) structuring skills (cognitive-behavioural) c) relevance to the client 5. Skill Maintenance

67. Evaluation Design Volunteers Training No Training

68. Early Findings

69. * Differences are significant Did Training Change PO Behaviour?

70. * Differences are significant PO Behaviour

71. Did Training Change Client Behaviour? Are client outcomes different? –At 6 months –Negative outcomes –Based on all available information  Charged with a new offence  Breach of probation  Failure to report for at least 2 months

72. Did STICS Training Change Client Behaviour?

73. Positive, yet preliminary  Strong evidence that –STICS POs more frequently demonstrated practices in adherence to RNR  6 month outcomes favourable to STICS –12% average difference in negative outcomes –23% difference with quality considered

74. Summary: Making It Work in the Real World What we need to do: n Teach staff a specific model of treatment (RNR) n Use an evidence-based risk/need risk assessment; at least 3 rd generation n Train and supervise staff on relationship and cognitive- behavioural skills n Monitor intermediate change n Keep it small numbers - integrity n Avoid correctional quackery and respect the evidence

75. Indian wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount In corrections, we often try other strategies 1. Buy a stronger whip. 2. Change riders 3. Appoint a committee to study the horse. 4. Visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses. 5. Give added funding to increase the horse ’ s performance. 6. Study alternative uses for dead horses. 7. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.